Thanks for a great post! I liked Pope Benedict's remark on the three authentic traditions of Christian art. Question: where does that place Renaissance-era art? Is it not considered an authentic Christian style because of its humanistic influence? What about the great works of Christian themes during the Renaissance (Sistine Chapel, etc.)?
Yes, that's right. According to Benedict (writing before he was Pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger), he argues that it is not appropriate for the liturgy in the same way, in the Spirit of the Liturgy he says:
"The Renaissance did something quite new. It “emancipated” man. Now we see the development of the “aesthetic” in the modern sense, the vision of a beauty that no longer points beyond itself but is content in the end with itself, the beauty of the appearing thing. Man experiences himself in his autonomy, in all his grandeur. Art speaks of this grandeur of man almost as if it were surprised by it; it needs no other beauty to seek. There is often scarcely a difference between the depictions of pagan myths and those of Christian history. The tragic burden of antiquity has been forgotten; only its divine beauty is seen. A nostalgia for the gods emerges, for myth, for a world without fear of sin and without the pain of the Cross, which had perhaps been too overpowering in the images of the late Middle Ages. True, Christian subjects are still being depicted, but such “religious art” is no longer sacred art in the proper sense."
In short: High Renaissance art is, for Ratzinger (we are not bound to accept his view, I should add), artistically magnificent and religiously themed, but not liturgical because, although its beauty draws the observer in, it fails to direct the worshipper beyond itself into the Paschal mystery.
Thanks for a great post! I liked Pope Benedict's remark on the three authentic traditions of Christian art. Question: where does that place Renaissance-era art? Is it not considered an authentic Christian style because of its humanistic influence? What about the great works of Christian themes during the Renaissance (Sistine Chapel, etc.)?
Thank you, Alyssa.
Yes, that's right. According to Benedict (writing before he was Pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger), he argues that it is not appropriate for the liturgy in the same way, in the Spirit of the Liturgy he says:
"The Renaissance did something quite new. It “emancipated” man. Now we see the development of the “aesthetic” in the modern sense, the vision of a beauty that no longer points beyond itself but is content in the end with itself, the beauty of the appearing thing. Man experiences himself in his autonomy, in all his grandeur. Art speaks of this grandeur of man almost as if it were surprised by it; it needs no other beauty to seek. There is often scarcely a difference between the depictions of pagan myths and those of Christian history. The tragic burden of antiquity has been forgotten; only its divine beauty is seen. A nostalgia for the gods emerges, for myth, for a world without fear of sin and without the pain of the Cross, which had perhaps been too overpowering in the images of the late Middle Ages. True, Christian subjects are still being depicted, but such “religious art” is no longer sacred art in the proper sense."
In short: High Renaissance art is, for Ratzinger (we are not bound to accept his view, I should add), artistically magnificent and religiously themed, but not liturgical because, although its beauty draws the observer in, it fails to direct the worshipper beyond itself into the Paschal mystery.
How interesting! Thanks for taking the time to quote Benedict in full.